4 ms·

This is wrong on so may levels. Congress should not see a cent if everyone else is not getting paid.

• mkonecny 8y ago
  The more I hear about US politics, the more I see how broken the system is. Another example is lobbying - AKA bribing
  • stock_toaster 8y ago
    I think Citizens United vs FEC [1] will be looked at by history as the real turning point (to decline) of the US federal republic. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
• jopsen 8y ago
  Nice, sentiment.. but hopefully that's not how politics works.
• imron 8y ago
  This was my first reaction as well, but then I thought about it for a bit, and realised that congress still getting paid is an essential check and balance on executive power. Congressional salaries need to be free of the influence of presidents threatening to shutdown government if their agenda isn't voted on, otherwise the threat of withheld pay could substantially effect how congresspeople vote. That's a bigger problem, even if the optics of congresspeople still getting paid during a shutdown is bad.
  • mikeash 8y ago
    Congress could just pass a law saying the government stays open by default, going back to how things were before a few decades ago, and avoid the whole problem. The executive’s cooperation is not needed here. The president cannot shut down the government. The most he can do is veto a law, and congress can override it.
    • imron 8y ago
      > The president cannot shut down the government. And yet for all intents and purposes he has, because he's wielding his veto powers and congress hasn't passed a law to stay open by default. Now imagine the dynamic where congressional salaries were being withheld also, and is it possible that it could influence the votes of ~10 or so senators Trump needs to get wall funding approved? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not a healthy dynamic for the president to be able to exert such direct financial pressure on congresspeople. > Congress could just pass a law saying the government stays open by default You say 'just', but do you really see the current congress passing such a law? I don't think it is just that simple.
      • mikeash 8y ago
        The only thing making any of this difficult is that Congress doesn’t want to do it. If they wanted to find the government, it would be funded. If they wanted to have the government stay open by default, it would be done. It’s not that simple, but only because a substantial part of Congress doesn’t want to do this. I don’t think this financial pressure would change anything. But it would be trivial to avoid if they wanted to.
• votepaunchy 8y ago
  Before the Reagan administration, the government stayed open while Congress dithered about debating appropriations. The shutdown is all politics top-to-bottom. And not paying Congress would require a constitutional amendment so not really worth the consternation.
• max76 8y ago
  The partial goverment shutdown is caused by the president's unwillingness to sign a bill as well as Congress's inability to pass a bill the president is willing to sign. The defused blame sets the game matrix to a state where the delta value between the bill congress agrees on and the bill the president will sign is significantly larger than the defecting penalty any oneside side will suffer. Removing a paycheck from all actors won't provide a significant adjustment to the game matrix, because the reputation deduction portion of the the defector penalty is significantly more valuable than salary. Some actors actually see a reputation increase for fighting this fight. While increasing the defector penalty is a good idea, reduction of salary doesn't increase it much.
  • smallnamespace 8y ago
    Yes, but politics is also a game about making people feel that their government is fair and legitimate, not 'merely' efficient at decisionmaking.
    • max76 8y ago
      Right, the largest sufferer of reputation loss is Congress's collective brand. Individual actors are relatively consequence free.
  • gammateam 8y ago
    > The partial goverment shutdown is caused by the president's unwillingness to sign a bill as well as Congress's inability to pass a bill the president is willing to sign. you forgot: or pass a bill the president can't sign, by overriding a veto but that also requires even greater consensus than Congress can currently achieve.
    • max76 8y ago
      > you forgot: or pass a bill the president can't sign, by overriding a veto Are you talking about passing a bill with such a high majority that the president cannot veto the bill? I wonder if the budget was ever passed with such a majority.
• Spooky23 8y ago
  That’s even worse. Congresspeople don’t make a ton of money and starving them just pushes out the less wealthy.
  • Something1234 8y ago
    I thought congress people make about $80,000 a year. That's a big chunk of change across most of the country.
    • Someone1234 8y ago
      But nothing in Washington DC.
    • cwt137 8y ago
      Members of Congress make $174,000/year [1]. That is about 3x the median household (not individual) income in the US [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_Uni... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
      • Spooky23 8y ago
        The median household doesn’t maintain homes in Washington and some other place.
    • maxxxxx 8y ago
      Representatives make 174k
    • niij 8y ago
      Not in DC where their employer is.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• grecy 8y ago
  Not only should they not see a cent, they should be heavily fined for refusing to do the job they were elected to do. They should have done unpaid overtime until the situation was resolved. Better yet, every single one of them should automatically lose their position and have a forced election to replace them (..maybe they can run again for the job they already have). How many people can just walk out of their job with no consequences?
• TomMckenny 8y ago
  A president should not have veto power over the budget. Nor the power to pardon for that matter. The country should have learned from Nixon that modeling the president as an elected 18th century king is long obsolete.
  • the_trapper 8y ago
    The President having veto power over the budget is not the problem, the complete lack of any sort of ability to compromise amongst either party's leadership is. Without veto power Congress could ram through all manner of pork barrel spending without anyone to check them.
    • esturk 8y ago
      The Senate passed the bill 100-0. The lack of compromise is not the problem. The problem is that Paul Ryan is retiring and he refuses to bring the bill for a revote because there's no consequences at all for him.
    • TomMckenny 8y ago
      With veto power, a president could hold the budget hostage until a demand was met.
      • the_trapper 8y ago
        Yes and Congress can override his veto. That's how the checks and balances work.